Haven't yet read the text but US leftists which use Sweden as example so much should realize this country is, in many senses, much closer from a free-market than the US is, even though it's many miles away.

I've seen many economical freedom indexes ranking these Nordic countries as very easy on regulations, which are much more critical (do more damage) than government spending.And even when talking about government spending, although true that they rob their subjects insanely, more than the US gov does, it is also true that the government gets to decide what to do with the money less than in most big governments. A considerable amount of the stolen money is just redistributed to the people so they decide how to spend it. For example, instead of using tax money to finance public schools, they give this money to parents so they choose which school to put their children in. I don't know how their socialized health care works, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was in the same line. This is still far from free market, but much closer than the majority of US school systems. Another major point regarding government spending is that they don't finance huge mass murderers military forces, doing multiple wars at a time - this counts a lot. They didn't even join any of the WW as far as I know, what is obviously great for the economy in the long run.

It's amazing what you can accomplish when you aren't spending $1.5 trillion/year on pointless wars and you don't have to fight against an ignorant population that thinks your central bank is a illuminati run organization sent by Lucifer to steal souls and rape children.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1

Clinton handed Bush a HUGE surplus, and Bush readily spent it and then some on pointlessly invading Afghanistan (failed to get biLaden) and Iraq (no WMD? ORLY!), as well as missile defense shields (defend from those... uhm... high tech nuclear missile producing terrorists, ya know), and a massive massive massive dividend tax cut (for the majority of you forum folks out there that don't know what a dividend is (e.g. the guys that are probably mad at me already for making fun of BushmoronJR), it's what rich & smart folks make most of their money from).

Clinton handed Bush a HUGE surplus, and Bush readily spent it and then some on pointlessly invading Afghanistan (failed to get biLaden) and Iraq (no WMD? ORLY!), as well as missile defense shields (defend from those... uhm... high tech nuclear missile producing terrorists, ya know), and a massive massive massive dividend tax cut (for the majority of you forum folks out there that don't know what a dividend is (e.g. the guys that are probably mad at me already for making fun of BushmoronJR), it's what rich & smart folks make most of their money from).

Sweden really sets a great example. Nice article!!

Starve the Beast they call it, dumbasses. Take the pooled resources of the community (the "stolen wealth" libertards refer to because they are idiots) and spunk it all on crap like wars, tax-breaks for the 1-percent and massively-unrealistic weapons systems to point at nations that really don't need to have weapons pointed at them.

This deprives "the beast" of the resources to do useful things it's supposed to do, healthcare, education, infrastructure, income-support etc. You know, useful stuff, the kind of public goods and services that should be the only fucking excuse an agent made of pooled communal resources exists to supply in the first place.

Iceland is a better example. Compare Iceland to the PIIGS. Iceland gave a big fuck you to the banksters while the PIIGS are taking on ever more severe austerity measures. What's the interest rate on Icelandic bonds compared to Portuguese or Irish?

I recomend to some of the poster here to stop insulting to other members of the community.

Regarding the article is a bunch of non-sequiturs. I would appreciate if the op would bring a serious economic analisys and not the economic political propaganda.

Being the OP I apologize that the article doesn't fit your world view. I know how frustrating it must be to find that something you've academically decided doesn't work, actually does in the real world.

People in these forums say "the market will fix it, just leave everything be" and it turns out that the highest performers out there are actually those who DON'T do this.If I'm not misinformed Lithuania was also a big mess not too long ago, then they employed some strict economic policy and turned everything around, doing quite well now.

If everything in the article are just "non-sequiturs" was it just blind luck that made Sweden come out on top? Please point out the flaws in the article instead of just dismissing it as propaganda.

Being the OP I apologize that the article doesn't fit your world view. I know how frustrating it must be to find that something you've academically decided doesn't work, actually does in the real world.

People in these forums say "the market will fix it, just leave everything be" and it turns out that the highest performers out there are actually those who DON'T do this.If I'm not misinformed Lithuania was also a big mess not too long ago, then they employed some strict economic policy and turned everything around, doing quite well now.

If everything in the article are just "non-sequiturs" was it just blind luck that made Sweden come out on top? Please point out the flaws in the article instead of just dismissing it as propaganda.

Can you try to argue without putting in my mouth words that I did not say? Why do you need to be dishonest? If you are right, you dont need to be dishonest. That you are manipulating and adopting a trolling attitude shows that you are insecure because probably you already know the article does not hold.

I did not say the article is fustrating or that the article "works in real life". What I said is the article is a bunch of non-sequiturs. This article is quite ridiculous. Anyone with a bit of critical thinking capacity can see it. Lets take for example the part on monetary policy. It almost does not explain how this aggressive monetary policy is good. If you take the explanation of the situation and the rethoric out, this is all that is left to explain why this aggresive monetary politcy is good:

Quote

The impact of low rates on the economy, however, are clear.

“Interest rates fell very low, and households had more money available for consumption because their mortgage payments dropped,” said Lena Hagman, chief economist of Almega, an association of major employers in Sweden’s services sector.

First of all, the first sentence is a typical form of propaganda. This is clear. Period. Nothing to discuss here. Is typical rethoric from a cult.

Then you have the typical falacy that lower rates call always create more consumption, and then the even bigger fallacy that more consumption helps the economy (how did that work for Greenspan and Bush?).

Have you consider that the reason why this abuse by the central bank did not have a worse effect and the economy did not suffer too much from it, is that there was no housing bubble in Sweden? No, lets compare a Sweden without a housing bubble with a USA with a housing bubble. Yeah, that makes sense...

How about Germany performance when the ECB wasnt as aggressive as the article suggest a central bank has to be? Oh well, Germany did not have a housing bubble and they are doing good. While Spain also under the ECB policies is doing very bad, and, surprise surprise, they had a housing bubble. So the countries that didnt have a housing bubble are doing a lot better than the countries that had a housing bubble, all with more and less agressive monetary policies. But hey, its the agressive monetary policy, no doubt!

The whole thing is propaganda, and anyone with a bit of critical thiking can see it. But I dont think you want to really discuss the issues, nor the rest of your "budies" want to rationally discuss neither. This thread was just opened for name calling, so you can proceed.

Iceland is a better example. Compare Iceland to the PIIGS. Iceland gave a big fuck you to the banksters while the PIIGS are taking on ever more severe austerity measures. What's the interest rate on Icelandic bonds compared to Portuguese or Irish?

Iceland is the best example of what one should do. Default on the debt and start over again.

The austerity mesures without defaulting on the debt will never ever work, and in reality are condenming Greece to years, maybe even more than a decade, of stagnation. The only objective of the EU is that the bankers get their debt repayed. Its a real shame.

The austerity mesures without defaulting on the debt will never ever work, and in reality are condenming Greece to years, maybe even more than a decade, of stagnation. The only objective of the EU is that the bankers get their debt repayed. Its a real shame.

Yes, it is just another way in which the international criminal conglomerate of corporate/state interests can make the average person continue to "suck it up" and "sacrifice" while they laugh all the way to the bank (that they own and run).

Can you try to argue without putting in my mouth words that I did not say? Why do you need to be dishonest? If you are right, you dont need to be dishonest. That you are manipulating and adopting a trolling attitude shows that you are insecure because probably you already know the article does not hold.

I did not say the article is fustrating or that the article "works in real life". What I said is the article is a bunch of non-sequiturs. This article is quite ridiculous. Anyone with a bit of critical thinking capacity can see it. Lets take for example the part on monetary policy. It almost does not explain how this aggressive monetary policy is good. If you take the explanation of the situation and the rethoric out, this is all that is left to explain why this aggresive monetary politcy is good:

Quote

The impact of low rates on the economy, however, are clear.

“Interest rates fell very low, and households had more money available for consumption because their mortgage payments dropped,” said Lena Hagman, chief economist of Almega, an association of major employers in Sweden’s services sector.

First of all, the first sentence is a typical form of propaganda. This is clear. Period. Nothing to discuss here. Is typical rethoric from a cult.

Then you have the typical falacy that lower rates call always create more consumption, and then the even bigger fallacy that more consumption helps the economy (how did that work for Greenspan and Bush?).

Have you consider that the reason why this abuse by the central bank did not have a worse effect and the economy did not suffer too much from it, is that there was no housing bubble in Sweden? No, lets compare a Sweden without a housing bubble with a USA with a housing bubble. Yeah, that makes sense...

How about Germany performance when the ECB wasnt as aggressive as the article suggest a central bank has to be? Oh well, Germany did not have a housing bubble and they are doing good. While Spain also under the ECB policies is doing very bad, and, surprise surprise, they had a housing bubble. So the countries that didnt have a housing bubble are doing a lot better than the countries that had a housing bubble, all with more and less agressive monetary policies. But hey, its the agressive monetary policy, no doubt!

The whole thing is propaganda, and anyone with a bit of critical thiking can see it. But I dont think you want to really discuss the issues, nor the rest of your "budies" want to rationally discuss neither. This thread was just opened for name calling, so you can proceed.

Quite a long answer. I'm honoured. I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I just thought I could sense a little bit of frustration in your reply, if that was wrong, I apologize. And yes, the response was written a bit 'tongue in cheek', I didn't mean to be trollish though.

Now, if I extend such courtesy to you, perhaps you could do the same and refrain from statements such as "anyone with a bit of critical thinking capacity can see" which clearly implies that anyone who doesn't agree with you lacks such capacity.

Why do you only focus on one of the points mentioned?But OK, let's talk about that one point.What's so controversial about mentioning that lower rates gave households more money to spend? It generally does. Was it all spent? I don't know. Some of it probably was. And why wouldn't consumption help the economy? I don't know enough about Greenspan/Bush to address that, but feel free to enlighten me.And I don't agree with you assertion that "the first sentence is a typical form of propaganda. This is clear. Period. Nothing to discuss here. Is typical rethoric from a cult" at all. If you want to make that assertion, do so with facts and not some hand-waving and "everybody knows this".

I'm from scandinavia and I really don't give a shit whether we managed to stand upright through the financial crisis or not. We're getting less free every year with increasing privacy intrusions and ever increasing taxes to fund the paychecks of a growing state-employed & political elite. Sorry to disappoint any leftists "looking to norway and sweden", but this is just not working out at a base human level. The only thing I can appreciate about living in a humongous welfare state is that going Galt is pretty damn comforting!

I'm from scandinavia and I really don't give a shit whether we managed to stand upright through the financial crisis or not. We're getting less free every year with increasing privacy intrusions and ever increasing taxes to fund the paychecks of a growing state-employed & political elite. Sorry to disappoint any leftists "looking to norway and sweden", but this is just not working out at a base human level. The only thing I can appreciate about living in a humongous welfare state is that going Galt is pretty damn comforting!

I have no idea what "going Galt" means. Apart from that what was mentioned in the article was that Sweden has done quite well recovering. They have done so by "meddling" in the market, which goes against the Austrian school which many here subscribe to. I found that interesting and thought I'd get some comments on that. I'm sorry you feel less free. Where would you rather be? Are there other places that you feel "work out" better at a base human level.

Iceland is a better example. Compare Iceland to the PIIGS. Iceland gave a big fuck you to the banksters while the PIIGS are taking on ever more severe austerity measures. What's the interest rate on Icelandic bonds compared to Portuguese or Irish?

Iceland is the best example of what one should do. Default on the debt and start over again.

The austerity mesures without defaulting on the debt will never ever work, and in reality are condenming Greece to years, maybe even more than a decade, of stagnation. The only objective of the EU is that the bankers get their debt repayed. Its a real shame.

I'm from scandinavia and I really don't give a shit whether we managed to stand upright through the financial crisis or not. We're getting less free every year with increasing privacy intrusions and ever increasing taxes to fund the paychecks of a growing state-employed & political elite. Sorry to disappoint any leftists "looking to norway and sweden", but this is just not working out at a base human level. The only thing I can appreciate about living in a humongous welfare state is that going Galt is pretty damn comforting!

I have no idea what "going Galt" means. Apart from that what was mentioned in the article was that Sweden has done quite well recovering. They have done so by "meddling" in the market, which goes against the Austrian school which many here subscribe to. I found that interesting and thought I'd get some comments on that. I'm sorry you feel less free. Where would you rather be? Are there other places that you feel "work out" better at a base human level.

I suddenly realized that my rant may have been perceived as an attack on you for posting the article, which of course is not the case, thank's for posting. I'm just tired of seeing propaganda (e.g. on the UN best of lists) that the scandinavian socialism is so good, when in fact close to 80% of a typical person's income goes into taxes in some way or another, and one have to settle for whatever the government hands back to you. This way, wealth is distributed somewhat evenly; however, it's at the point of a gun, and the collectivists aren't satisfied with people's money, they want to control our lives as well with very intrusive regulations in the private sphere. The numbers usually only show statistics about material wealth – not happiness and quality of life.